DISPOSITION FORM ~~iL ~~IFor us* of this form, See AR 340.15, the proponent agency is TAGO,A~EFERENCE OR OFFICE SYMBOL SUBJECT

i SGRD-UE -HP Request for Clearance of Technical Paper (USARIEM)

TO Commander. USARIEM FROM Dir, H&P Div DATE 29 July 1988 CMT1

O ce USARIEM Memo 360-1, request clearance of attached [Dmanuscript, Cabstract, [presentation,o d, report, CD review article. Report Documentation Page, DD Form 1473 (is)(is not) attached.CI Field-dependence, Judgment of Weights by Females and an Appeal for a More

M' Complex Approach to the Study of Individual Differences0) s) Bernard J. Fine

J for publication in Personality and Individual Differences

(~ I for presentation before __________________________________

________________ Location _________________ Date ____________

2. Budget Project No. 3M161102BS15 Cost Code 8480082101046

3. Attached contains no classified material. It meets acc an ds for scientifi accuracy and propriety. It

contains no potentially sensitive or controversial item

End ,MDirector, Healt &PrformanceDvso

SGRD-UEZ()

THRU Chief, Admin Svc Br FROM Commander DATE /L 4 ~CMT 2

TO Q kP Div D\/, 'Clearance is granted. ftLE T

Clearance is not granted. S%% -98 USThis document must be forwarded to USAMRDC for clearance. H

End - DISTRIBU -TION SAA DAVID D. SCHNAKENBERnc IColonel, MS

Distibuion i12*edCommanding

CLEARANCE NO. M66-88

NATICK FL 883 V (1 Jun 36 EDITION OF I DEC 34IS OBSOLETE.

DA AFOPm 2496 PRUVIOUS EDITIONS VWLL bit USED smi Of

Field-Dependence, Judgment of Weights by Females and an Appeal

for a More Complex Approach to the Study of Individual Differences

Bernard J. Fine

US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA

Fine (1972a) has presented evidence of a strong, non-linear relationship

between field-dependence-independence MOIE aft'ter -referred to as "field-

dependence;" Witkin, 1964, 19651 Witkin, Dyk,-Faterson, 'oodenough and Karp,

1962)- introversion-extraversion (hereinafter referred to as "extraversion;"

Eysenck, 1967) and neuroticism (Eysenck, 1967). In the context of that

relationship, he suggested that differences between individuals in

field-dependence might be conceptualized profitably as at least partially

genetically-based differences in "sensitivity," as contrasted with "strength"

(Eysenck, 1967), of the nervous system.

Differences in "sensitivity" were assumed to depend upon the extent to

which the nervous system becomes "differentiated" as an individual develops.

"Differentiation" differed from the use of the term by Witkin et al. (1962) in

that it was considered in its biological sense as being referable to physical

characteristics of components of the nervous system or of the nervous system

as a whole, e.g., size, number and/or distribution of specific types of

receptors, elaborateness or complexity of neural networks, quality or quantity

of neural transmitter substances, with these ultimately reducible to

differences in the molecular structure of enzymes and proteins ,(Fine, 1972a,

1973). (Witkin's concern with "differentiation" primarily was with reference

to the socio-psychological rather than the physical aspects of development,

and focussed on broad areas such as ego development and independence of self

and the influence of environment.)

2

From this conceptual base, it was reasoned that "sensitivity" of the

nervous system should be related to ability to discriminate among stimuli, the

more differentiated and, hence, the more "sensitive" the system, the better

the ability to discriminate. Because of his specific interest in

field-dependence at the time, Fine postulated that individuals with highly

"sensitive" nervous systems should be those who are most proficient on spatial

perception tests such as the Hidden Figures Test (HFT; Witkin, et al. 1962)

or the Gottschaldt Hidden Shapes Test (HST; Cattell, et al., 1955) from which

the HFT was derived, i.e., individuals who, in Witkin's schema, had come to be

called "field-independent." Conversely, individuals with the least "sensitive"

nervous systems were postulated as being those who are least proficient on

tests of spatial perception, and who had come to be referred to as "field-

dependent." Thus, Witkin's concept, field-dependence, became a construct which

was thought to be both a behavioral manifestation of and an indirect

approximation of the level of development of aspects of the nervous system.

To test the generality of the "sensitivity" hypothesis, a number of

studies of the relationship between field-dependence and other types of

complex sensory discrimination have been carried out. To date, the hypothesis

j has been tested and very strongly supported with respect to both the

discrimination of colors (Fine, 1973) and contrast sensitivity (Fine &

Kobrick, 1987), and, to a lesser extent, with discrimination of weights (Fine,

1973). The color discrimination results now have been replicated many times

with male subjects [Fine & Kobrick, 1980, 1983 (color test given, but results

not reported), 1987 (p.781)) and also in a study specifically focussed on

females (Fine, 1983a). In all of the studies of the discrimination of colors :7

and in the contrast sensitivity study, the performance of field-independent

groups was markedly superior to that of field-dependent groups. L *'loli

Av'l~PbUlltY ?cd,5

Avt-ii and/orLi1st Spocial

A major shortcoming of the weight discrimination study (Fine, 1973) was

that the test used to measure weight discrimination ability was not very

sensitive. There also was evidence in that study that weight discrimination

was related to extraversion as well as to field-dependence. No relationship

with extraversion had been found in any of the color discrimination studies or

the contrast sensitivity study.

Accordingly, the study presented here was designed specifically to

re-examine the relationship between field-dependence and the ability to judge

weights, using a more sensitive test, and to inquire further into a possible

relationship between extraversion and discrimination of weight.

To further verify the relationship between field-dependence and the

discrimination of colors, a color discrimination test also was given.

Consistent with the "sensitivity" hypothesis, it was predicted that

field-independent persons would be significantly better than field-dependent

persons at both weight and color discrimination. No predictions were made

regarding a possible relationship between extraversion and weight

discrimination.

Method

Subjects

Subjects (Ss) were 17 female soldier volunteers, ages 20-34 (median=22)

who had been screened by a physician to insure that they were in good health

for participation in a larger study of which this one was a part (Fine, 1987).

Informed consent was obtained from each S. The research conformed to US Army

Medical Research & Development Command Regulation 70-25 on Use of Volunteers

in Research.

24

Measures

(a) The weight discrimination task consisted of 15 white plastic

cylinders, each 3.4 cm. in diameter and topped with a black plastic cap, 4 cm.

in diameter. Cylinders with caps were 5.3 cm. tall. They were filled with tiny

metal bearings to specific weights. Empty space in each cylinder was filled

with cotton. The weight of the cylinders ranged from 75 to 145 grams in 5 gram

increments +/- .1 gram. Each cylinder was numbered on the bottom with its

appropriate rank, in increasing order of heaviness, from 1 to 15.

(b) Field-dependence was assessed by the HST (Cattell, et al., 1955).

Participants were categorized on the basis of norms established from test

scores of 154 female soldiers previously tested with the HST. Persons with

scores in the lower third of that distribution (18 or below; N=6) were

classified as field-dependent, those scoring in the upper third (26 or higher;

N=5) as field-independent and the remainder (N=6) as "field-central."

(c) Extraversion was measured with the Maudsley Personality Inventory

(MPI; Eysenck, 1959) rather than with later inventories by the Eysencks, since

norms from a large soldier population (N=600+) were available for the MPI from

our past research. Ss were divided into three groups based on these norms

(male and female norms were identical). Persons scoring in the lower third of

the distribution (26 or below; N=3) were classified as introverts, those in

the upper third (34 and higher; N=9) as extraverts, and the remainder of the

group (N=5) constituted a "middle" category.

d) Color discrimination ability was measured by the Farnsworth-Munsell

100-Hue Test (Farnsworth, 1957), which was designed to separate persons with

normal color vision into classes of superior, average and low color

discrimination ability and to measure zones of color confusion of color

defective persons. A detailed description of the test and its scoring can be

5

found in Fine (1973).

Design and procedure

Each S was tested with the weight test at the same time on two successive

days, three trials per day. A five-minute time limit was allowed for each

trial. Inter-trial intervals also were of five minutes duration to allow for

recovery from fatigue induced by the demanding task.

S was instructed to use her preferred hand to arrange the cylinders from

lightest to heaviest using any method of comparison she desired. Ss were

monitored carefully to insure that they did not invert the cylinders. After

each trial, the ordered cylinders were turned over and the order of

arrangement was recorded. Ss were allowed to see how well they had done.

During the ensuing rest period, cylinders were returned to the starting

position and thoroughly shuffled for the next trial.

The color discrimination test was taken the day prior to the weight

discrimination test. Two trials were given, separated by a five-minute

interval. Persons administering the weight test had no idea of Ss' levels of

performance on the color test.

Results

The score for a given cylinder in the weight discrimination test was the

sum of the difference between the number of that cylinder, i.e., its r~rk, and

the numbers of the cylinders immediately above and below it in the ordering

that had been established by the S. Thus, correct placement of all cylinders

in the series resulted in each cylinder receiving a score of 2. Incorrect

placement of cylinders resulted in individual cylinder scores in excess of 2,

herein termed "error scores." For example, a two-cylinder transposition

(...49,5,7,6,8,9...) resulted in an error score of 4; a three-cylinder

transposition (...4,5,7,8,6,9,10...) resulted in an error score of 8, etc.

6

Essentially, this is the same system that is used for scoring the color

discrimination test (Farnsworth, 1957).

Analyses of variance (ANOVAS) of the weight discrimination error scores

were performed for the field-dependence and the extraversion dimensions over

the six trials.

For field-dependence, between groups (trichotomized) differences were

significant (F=10.6, df2,14, p<.0001); differences between trials were not.

The mean error scores for each field-dependence sub-group by trials, day and

combined days are shown in Table 1, along with the respective t-tests

(one-tail) and p-values for the field-dependence/field-independence sub-group

comparisons.

Insert Table 1 About Here

No significant effects were found for extraversion. The correlation

between field-dependence and extraversion was not significant (r=.06).

Eysenck (1983) has indicated that correlating field-dependence scores

with the entire extraversion scale, rather than separately with its

impulsivity and sociability components, may understate what he perceives to be

a rather strong similarity between field-dependence and extraversion. He has

W suggested that it is the impulsivity component of the extraversion scale which

mediates correlations with field-dependence. Accordingly, separate

correlations were run between field-dependence and impulsivity (r=.00) and

field-dependence and sociability (r=-.25). Neither correlation was significant

(N=17). Impulsivity and sociability were related at the p <.10 level (r=.45).

To validate this result, a similar set of correlations on another set of data

(Fine and Kobrick, 1980) were computed. This analysis yielded an r=.05 between

impulsivity and field-dependence and an r=.09 between sociability and

field-dependence; both non-significant (N=35). Here, impulsivity and

7

sociability were significantly related (r=.53, p<.Ol). We did no further

analyses in this vein.

The small N and somewhat skewed extraversion distribution (only 3

introverts) did not allow for examination for non-linear associations between

the field-dependence and extraversion dimensions, e.g., grouping Ss into

sub-groups representing combinations of the two dimensions such as

field-dependent introverts, field-dependent extraverts, etc. (see Fine, 1972a)

and comparing performance scores of these sub-groups.

Finally, as predicted, the field-independent group was found to be

significantly superior to the field-dependent group in color discrimination on

both trials (t-test; p <.05, 1-tail), providirg yet another corroboration of

that relationship.

Discussion

The results clearly support the prediction that the field-independent

group would be superior to the field-dependent group in weight discrimination

ability. Taking the average for the six trials, which, perhaps, is the best

indicator of the differences between groups, the t:3.38 yields a W (Hays,

1963) of .49, indicating that field-dependence accounted for nearly 50% of the

variance in weight discrimination performance.

The lack of a significant relationship between field-dependence and

extraversion (or between field-dependence and impulsivity or sociability)

supports the position (Fine, 1983b) that the two dimensions are independent.

[While Eysenck (1983) contends that his perceived association between

extraversion and field-dependence may hold primarily when field-dependence is

measured by the rod-and-frame test, Fine and Danforth (1975) have discredited

the rod-and-frame test as a measure of field-dependence, and question its

meaning.]

For some reason, perhaps because it is less complicated, many, if not

most, investigators pursue a one-dimensional approach to the study of

individual differences. The "science," collectively, appears to operate at

times as if there is a single "magic" variable waiting to be discovered which

will unravel the mystery of individual variations in behavior.

In fact, however, the substance of recent research implies quite the

opposite, i.e., that the study of individual differences in behavior must be

attuned to an ever-increasing complexity, as knowledge about the human nervous

system increases. Much of the recent knowledge substantiates what was said 15

years ago (Fine, 1972a, 1973) when field-dependence was first conceptualized

as "sensitivity" of the nervous system.

For example, Curcio, Sloan, Packer, Hendrickson and Kalina (1987) have

found a 2.9- fold range in maximum cone density in the foveas of young adult

human eyes (four retinas from eye bank donors) which they state "may

contribute to individual differences in acuity." This is "sensitivity" as

differences in "size, number and/or distribution of... cells...." (Fine, 1973,

p. 287). Furthermore, the magnitude of the differences may be much greater

than 2.9-fold, because Curcio et al. (1987) worked with an extremely small N

and, in all probability, did not work with foveas which were representative of

the maximum cell density differences possible between individuals.

Haier (cited in Hostetler, 1988), used positron emission tomography (PET)

and found a negative relationship between the rate of glucose metabolism in

cortical areas of the brain and performance on Raven's Advanced Progressive

Matrices, a type of cognitive performance somewhat similar to that subsumed by

the field-dependence concept. Haier is quoted as suggesting that individuals

with higher cognitive ability may have more efficient or denser neural

circuits (underlining mine), which allow their brains to perform well at lower

9

metabolic rates. This is "sensitivity" as "elaborateness" of neural circuits;

precisely consistent with Fine (1972a, 1973).

Livingstone and Hubel (1988) recently have summarized visual processes in

both primates and humans, indicating that components of the visual system are

much more subdivided and specialized than heretofore believed. Thus, to

paraphrase, cells in the higher visual areas and cortical areas 1 and 2 are

"segregated" (their term) into three interacting components that select

differentially for such parameters as movement, orientation and color, with

the pathways that are selective for one component deriving from different

locations than the pathways selective for other components. At lower levels,

in the retina and geniculate, cells differ in color selectivity, contrast

sensitivity, spatial resolution, etc. These sub-systems all work together in

complex interaction. This is "sensitivity" as complexity of neural networks,

previously noted in Fine (1972a,1973). It also is highly consistent with

observations about complexity in Fine and Kobrick (1987, p. 781).

Both extraversion and field-dependence, each conceptualized as being of

biological origin, tap into this complexity as behavioral "markers" for

"strength" and "sensitivity," respectively, of the nervous system.

"Sensitivity" seems to be related to the range and specificity of possible

responses of the system, its ability to sense, interpret and process stimuli

and with the fineness of its "tuning"; in short, to the kinds of things noted

above by Curcio et al.(1987), Haier (in Hostetler, 1988) and Livingston and

Hubel (1988). "Strength" seems to be related to the control or management of

the system. It is manifested by such parameters as ease of conditioning and

extinguishing responses, and, possibly, is involved in the "appropriateness"

of responses. There undoubtedly are other dimensions, either already known or

awaiting discovery or formulation. For example, "arousal" or "activation" may

10

represent a "mobilization" dimension intermediate to "sensitivity" and

"strength."

Since most investigators in the areas in question have worked only with

field-dependence or only with extraversion, the "power" of what appears to be

a very strong and frequently occurring non-linear association between the two

virtually has gone unnoticed.

The potential of this "power" may be appreciated by considering the

following empirical examples taken from some of my previously published and

unpublished research (the data from some of which were re-analyzed for this

paper).

(1) In a study which retrospectively examined the relationship between

field-dependence, extraversion and neuroticism (see Fine, 1972a for

background), it was predicted that the combination of field-dependence and

extraversion, as manifested specifically in field-dependent introverts would

yield a higher incidence of neuroticism than would any other combination of

the two dimensions. This prediction was substantiated in each of four

independent studies, all using the MPI (Eysenck, 1959) and the HST (Cattell et

al., 1955) and in several other studies using other measures. In the studies

in which the MPI and the HST were used, trichotomization was based on norms

derived from a data base of over 600 military Ss.

Table 6 from Fine (1972a), shown below as Table 2, summarizes the

combined results of the field-dependence, extraversion, neuroticism

inter-relationship for the four studies in which the MPI and HST were used.

Insert Table 2 about here

Clearly, the combination of the two dimensions in this predicted

non-linear relationship contributed something greater than either dimension

separately. Moreover, the correlations between extraversion and

11

field-dependence in each of the four studies were .00 (N:54), -.02 (N=53), .18

(N:54) and .01 (N=17; this r was not stated in the published article), all

non-significant.

(2) Another example can be found in Fine (1972b). (The Ss in this study

were the same as in one of the four groups combined in Table 2.) This research

related intrinsic motivation, intelligence and personality to cognitive and

motor performance. Results from two tasks are of interest here. One was a

purely cognitive task, solving anagram puzzles, and the other was a motor

performance task with a cognitive component, sorting five different kinds of

screws (differing in shape and color) into five appropriately labelled

containers. Both tasks were performed under "self-paced" conditions, i.e. the

task was assigned for a specific period of time, to be done without anyone but

S present. Each task was performed once in the morning and once in the

afternoon of the same day.

Since the N (54) was too small to divide the group into 3rds on the basis

of field-dependence and extraversion combinations, medians, were used. These

were based on norms from a larger military population. No predictions were

made in this retrospective analysis.

For the anagram task, considering morning performance only (see means in

Table 3), it was found that the field-independent Ss, as a group, were

significantly superior (3 correct) to the field-dependent Ss (p <.01). No

differences were found between introverts and extraverts. However, further

analysis (ANOVA and t-tests) of the interaction between field-dependence and

extraversion revealed that the field-dependent extravert sub-group had a mean

performance score that was significantly poorer than each of the other three

sub-groups representing combinations of field-dependence and extraversion

(vs. independent extraverts, p:.01; vs. independent introverts, p=.06; vs.

12

dependent introverts, p=.09). Also, despite there being no overall differences

between extraverts and introverts, field-independent extraverts were found to

be superior to field-dependent introverts (p.0O4). Clearly, the combination of

field-dependence and extraversion elucidated more specific sources of poor

performance than either dimension separately.

Insert Table 3 About Here

Similar results were found with the morning performance of the

screw-sorting task (see Table 3). Over-all, the field-independent group

performed significantly better than the field-dependent group (p< .01),

whereas no significant differences were found between extraverts and

introverts. However, ANOVA and t-tests indicated that poorest performance was

centered in the field-dependent extravert sub-group which had significantly

poorer performance than the other three sub-groups (vs. independent

extraverts, p:.01; vs. independent introverts, p=.02; vs. dependent

introverts, p=.09).

Thus, while extraversion ordinarily would not have been considered as a

significant factor in the performance of these tasks, it was shown to be an

extremely important factor, since it interacted with field-dependence to

0describe the poorest performing sub-group, field-dependent extravert. This

would not have been determined by simple correlational analysis, since no

significant relationships were found between extraversion and performance or

extraversion and field-dependence.

In passing, it should be noted ( Table 3) that afternoon performance for

the anagram task was virtually unchanged from moining performance. However,

all groups, but particularly the field-dependent extraverts, improved on the

screw sorting task in the afternoon, to the extent that the field-dependent

extraverts no longer were the poorest performing group. Whether this diurnal

13

variation in performance is particularly meaningful with regard to

field-dependent extraverts has yet to be examined.

(3) Fine and Danforth (1975) examined the relationship between

field-dependence, extraversion and performance on the rod-and-frame test.

Based on the literature at the time, they predicted that field-dependent

extraverts would be poorest on the rod-and-frame test. This prediction proved

to be correct. Mean rod deviations (degrees) from true vertical over 12 trials

were 5.9 for the dependent extraverts (N=15), 3.7 for dependent introverts

(N=13) and 2.3 for both the independent extraverts (N=15) and independent

introverts (N=13). The correlation between field-dependence and extraversion

was not determined for this group of Ss because they represented extremes of

field-dependence and extraversion selected specifically for this study from a

larger group; correlations without the middle section of each distribution

would be misleading.

Here, again, the combination of the field-dependence and extraversion

dimensions yielded something that each dimension taken separately did not. The

relationship was non-linear and, in terms of rod-and-frame performance,

- brought extraversion ("strength") into what, at the time, was primarily

thought to be the domain of field-dependence ("sensitivity"), even though,

prior to that, Taft and Coventry (1958) and Fine and Cohen (1963) had

demonstrated that extraverts, in fact, were poorer than introverts on the

rod-and-frame. [It was partially because of the Fine and Cohen (1963) study

that Eysenck concluded that field-dependence and extraversion were one and the

same thing (Eysenck, 1967, p. 117, and, again, 1982), which has been disputed

(Fine, 1983b). It is apparent now that the earlier results of Taft and

Coventry (1958) and Fine and Cohen (1963) probably reflected a

disproportionate influence of field-dependent extraverts in their samples.]

11

(4) Fine and Kobrick (1976) had 49 soldiers view 40 slides (at sea level

and at altitude) in which a stimulus soldier (in camouflage uniform) was

identically posed in a constant background but with different viewing

distances and viewing angles from the observer. Accuracy of target detection

was analyzed for field-dependence and extraversion separately and in

combination, using the same median split as in prior examples. Data were

pooled across 40 trials and collapsed across distance and viewing angle. The

results are summarized in Table 4.

Insert Table 4 About Here

At sea level, the field-independent group generated proportionally more

correct target detections (57.8%) than did the field-dependent group (50.5%;

p<.01) and the introvert group (58.2%) more correct detections than the

extravert group (47.9%; p<.001). However, the poorest performance was shown to

be in the field-dependent extravert group (41%; comparisons with other three

sub-groups all yield p<.001). It was quite obvious (see Table 4) that the

differences between the field-independent and field-dependent groups and

between introverts and extraverts primarily were due to the poorer

performance of the field-dependent extravert sub-group. Although their

performance improved, field-dependent extraverts also were least accurate at

altitude (P <.01, all comparisons). Bear in mind that these are not the sameSs as in the previously cited study wherein the field-dependent extraverts

The correlation between field-dependence and extraversion here was -.32,

significant at P <.05, but hardly a robust enough association to account for

the large divergent pattern of the field-dependent extraverts, particularly

when viewed in the context of the other examples noted above.

(5) Finally, data from two unpublished experiments gathered from 60 Ss,

15

56 of whom were the basis of Fine (1973; relating field-dependence to color

discrimination) and Fine and Danforth (1975; relating field-dependence and

extraversion to performance on the rod-and-frame test), were re-analyzed for

this paper.

Based on the norms from a larger population previously referred to, the

60 Ss, 15 in each of four categories (field-independent extraverts,

field-independent introverts, field-dependent extraverts and field-dependent

introverts) had been selected as extremes (upper or lower thirds of each

distribution) from a larger group of 170 Ss on the basis of scores on the MPI

and HST.

In the first experiment, Ss performed a simple vigilance task, alone, for

two hours, under optimal, non-stressful conditions. The task, in a military

context, involved monitoring a video display of symbols representing friendly

and hostile objects, e.g., tanks, trucks. Periodically, a new, "unknown"

symbol would appear (according to a random schedule) embedded among the

complex array of symbols, and the S had to press a button upon perceiving it.

His responses were timed and errors of omission and commission were recorded.

The only stimulation S received during the two hours was from the video screen

or whatever was generated in his own mind. One would expect field-dependent

Ss to do less well on this task because of their poorer disembedding ability.

ANOVA of the response latency scores yielded a significant groups effect,

due to the slower performance of only the field-dependent introverts. This

sub-group, with a mean of 2.07 seconds differed significantly from each of the

other three groups whose means were very tightly clustered, ranging from 1.17

to 1.28 seconds. The field-dependent introvert sub-group also committed

significantly more errors of omission, with approximately 5% of their possible

judgments missed. The groups' poorer performance primarily was due to four Ss

16

actually falling asleep during the experiment. No Ss in any other sub-group

fell asleep! This is the same group of Ss in which field-dependent extraverts

were found to be poorest on the rod-and-frame, so it is not as if it is one

"set" of people who are just poorer overall on all tasks. It also should be

noted that field-dependent introverts was the category shown to be most

neurotic in a previous study (Fine, 1972a) cited above.

In a second experiment, the same Ss performed individually on a tapping

task, designed to induce motor fatigue. Under constant exhortation from E to

perform at maximum speed, S tapped a telegraph key as rapidly as possible for

five one-minute periods, each separated by a 30-second rest interval. The

results are shown in Table 5. Based on theory, we expected introverts to

perform better than extraverts, which they did (p<.10) in three of the five

trials (trials 3,4,5). Field-independent Ss, as a group, performed better than

field-dependent Ss in two of the five trials (trials 2,3). However, of

significance here, we found that field-independent introverts consistently

performed significantly (p<.06 or less) better than the other three sub-groups

(I4 of 15 comparisons, i.e., 5 trials x 3 comparisons each trial), which did

not differ from one another. Again, the two personality dimensions in

non-linear interaction revealed performance differences not discernible using

each dimension separately.

Insert Table 5 About Here

It would be very presumptuous to try to explain all of these results in

terms of "strength" and "sensitivity" of the nervous system, or to indicate

that all is clearly understood. Also, it must be pointed out that in certain

instances in our retrospective analyses, no relationships were found or

relationships only with field-dependence or only with extraversion occurred.

And, certainly, we have not covered all of the research that previously has

17

been done. However, explaining everything is not our point at this early

stage. What is important and what has been illustrated is that it appears that

a combination of field-dependence and extraversion frequently has yielded much

more "powerful" and specific results than either dimension by itself.

Of the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of studies done by followers of

Eysenck and Witkin, only a small fraction (probably much less than 1%) appear

to have dealt with both dimensions, and then only with linear relationships.

(It is my observation that "Eysenckians" rarely ever cite Witkin and

"Witkinites" rarely ever cite Eysenck.) Furthermore, in nearly every study,

regardless of which dimension was used, classification of Ss into

personality categories has been based only on within study test scores rather

than on norms from larger data bases, a documentably erroneous and misleading

procedure.

Since the KPI or its later versions only takes about 15-20 minutes to

complete and the HST no longer than 5 minutes, it seems terribly wasteful not

to use both measures, given the suggestive material we have presented above.

It is strongly recommended that both be used, and that norms based on large

groups be used for determining within-study sub-group classifications so that

studies can be directly compared. Where possible, N's should be large enough

to permit the upper and lower thirds of the personality score distributions to

be used for classifying Ss; the use of medians allows centrally scoring Ss to

"contaminate" the results.

Finally, neither the complexity nor the apparent genetic basis of each

dimension can or should be ignored. How we look at human behavior determines

how we proceed in our research. While biology continues to elucidate new and

wondrously complex relationships between the molecular and the molar, most of

psychology seems to proceed on the molar level only, either blissfully

18

ignorant of what is transpiring below or hoping that it will go away.

But it simply cannot be ignored, and it most certainly will not go away.

Rather, it is going to get even more complex. Somewhere in the beautifully

mysterious and complicated RNA/DNA chains of enzymes and proteins and their

precursors are markers for very complicated later neurological and other

events- structural and functional- which, themselves, then become transformed

into specific sub-units of behavior and, thence, into collections of

increasingly complex sub-units and, ultimately, into clusters of behaviors

which perceptive psychologists.., the Eysencks and the Witkins... then label

as extraversion or field-dependence.

To better understand this, one should study the article by Livingstone

and Hubel (1988) and overlay upon it the virtual certainty that each

individual has a distinctly unique combination of all of the complex factors

those authors discuss. Thus, individuals may differ markedly from one another

in the accuracy of their perception of edges, of slants, of color, contrast

and form and the differences between individuals may be at any level, from

receptors to highest areas of the cortex. Furthermore, if we look at

consistency of perception within an individual, it becomes readily

understandable why a person can score very high on one test involving the

perception of geometric shapes, the HST, for example, and yet do considerably

poorer on what, at a molar level, appears to be a very similar test, e.g., the

EFT; the two tests may require different degrees of sensitivity for edges,

slants, form, etc. However, tests never have been compared at so basic a

level. And it should be obvious that Livingstone and Hubel (1988) are

discussing only perception; similar complexity probably obtains in all other

systems.

Only through a very deep appreciation of this rather overwhelming

19

complexity and a dedication to systematically "picking it apart" can we hope

to arrive at an understanding of individual differences in human behavior and

an explanation for the seeming contradictions that we observe when viewing

that behavior solely from the molar level.

20

References

Cattell R.B., et al. (1955) The Objective-Analytic Personality Factor

Batteries. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL.

Curcio C.A., Sloan (Jr) K.R., Packer 0., Hendrickson A.E. and Kalina R.E.

(1987) Distribution of cones in human and monkey retina: individual

variability and radial asymmetry. Science 236, 579-582.

Eysenck H.J. (1959) The Maudsley Personality Inventory. Univer. London Press,

London.

Eysenck H.J. (1967) The Biological Basis of Personality. Charles C. Thomas,

Springfield, IL.

Eysenck H.J. (1982) Review of Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins by H.A.

Witkin and D.R. Goodenough. Person. individ. Diff. 3, 103.

Eysenck H.J. (1983) A reply to Fine. Person. individ. Diff. 4, 361.

Farnsworth D. (1957) Manual for the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue Test for the

Examination of Color Discrimination. Munsell Color Co., Baltimore.

Fine B.J. (1972a) Field-dependent introvert and neuroticism: Eysenck and

Witkin united. Psychol. Rep. 31, 939-956.

Fine B.J. (1972b) Intrinsic motivation, intelligence and personality as

related to cognitive and motor performance. Percept. mot. Skills 34,

319-329.

Fine B.J. (1973) Field-dependence-independence as "sensitivity" of the nervous

system: supportive evidence with color and weight discrimination.

Percept. mot. Skills 37, 287-295.

Fine B.J. (1983a) Field-dependence and color discrimination ability in

females. Percept. mot. Skills 57, 983-986.

21

Pine B.J. (1983b) Field-dependence, extraversion, Eysenck and autarky. Person.

individ. Diff. 4, 359-360.

Fine B.J. (1987) The effect of heat and chemical protective clothing on the

ability of a group of female soldiers to sustain performance of military

cognitive tasks. Tech. Rept. (T7-88) U.S. Army Research Institute of

Environmental Med., Natick, MA.

Fine B.J. and Cohen A. (1963) Internalization ratio, accuracy, and variability

of judgments of the vertical. Percept. mot. Skills 16, 138.

Fine B.J. and Danforth A.V. (1975) Field-dependence, extraversion and

perception of the vertical: empirical and theoretical perspectives of the

rod-and-frame test. Percept. mot. Skills 40, 683-693.

Fine B.J. and Kobrick J.L. (1976) Note on the relationship between

introversion-extraversion, field-dependence-independence and accuracy

of visual target detection. Percept. mot. Skills 42, 763-766.

Fine B.J. and Kobrick J.L. (1980) Field-dependence, practice and low

illumination as related to the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue Test. Percept.

mot. Skills 51, 1167-1177.

Pine B.J. and Kobrick J.L. (1983) Individual differences in distance

estimations comparison of judgments in the field with those from

projected slides of the same scenes. Percept. mot. Skills 57, 3-14.

Pine B.J. and Kobrick J.L. (1987) Cigarette smoking, field-dependence and

contrast sensitivity. Aviat. Space and Environ. Med. August, 777-782.

Hays W.L. (1963) Statistics for Psychologists. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

New York, Pp. 327-329.

Hostetler A.J. (1988) 'Smart' brains work better, not harder. APA Monitor

19, 15.

22

Livingstone M. and Hubel D. (1988) Segregation of form, color, movement, and

depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science 240, 740-749.

Taft R. and Coventry J. (1958) Neuroticism, extraversion and the perception

of the vertical. J. abnorm.soc. Psychol. 56, 139-141.

Witkin H.A. (1964) Origins of cognitive style. In Cognition: Theory, Research

Promise. (Edited by Scheerer C.) Harper and Row, New York, Pp. 172-205.

Witkin H.A. (1965) Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology.

J. abnorm. Psychol. 70, 317-336.

Witkin H.A., Dyk R.B., Paterson H.F., Goodenough, D.R. and Karp S.A. (1962)

Psychological Differentiation. Wiley, New York.

$

23

Table 1

Day 1 Day 2 Days 1+2

Trials

Group N 1 2 3 1-3 4 5 6 1-8

Field-Dependent 6 29.8 22.0 22.5 24.8 19.5 18.3 20.2 19.2 22.0

Field-Central 6 18.2 20.3 12.7 17.1 17.7 13.5 11.0 14.1 15.5

Field-Independent 5 14.4 7.2 12.4 11.4 9.8 10.8 14.0 11.5 11.5

t-test;

Dep./Indep. 2.19 3.05 1.82 3.21 2.13 1.47 1.34 2.26 3.38

P (l-tail) .03 .007 .05 .005 .03 .09 .11 .03 .004

Table 2

Group Field-independent Field-central Field-dependent

Extravert 3/21 (1J4%) 2/23 ( 9%) 3/20 (15%)

Middle 7/23 (30%) 6/18 (33%) 6/17 C35%)

Introvert 4~/18 (22%) 7/19 (37%) 15/19 (79%)

0-

25

Table 3

Task

Group N Anagrams Screw Sorting

(% Correct) (f sorted/# errors)

A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M.

Field-independent 28 90.0 88.1 264.0 337.9

Field-dependent 26 80.0 80.2 135.1 259.9

Introvert 30 85.8 85.1 197.3 300.8

Extravert 24 84.5 83.3 207.8 288.8

Independent-introvert 13 87.8 86.8 244.7 376.3

Independent-extravert 15 91.9 89.2 280.8 304.6

Dependent-introvert 17 84.2 83.8 161.1 243.1

Dependent extravert 9 72.2 73.4 86.0 262.4

26

Table 4i

Group

Co::dition Field-Independent Field-dependent

Introvert Extravert Introvert Extravert

(N=15) (N=9) (N=15) (N=10)

(% Correct) (% Correct)

Sea Level 59 56 58 41

Altitude 60 65 59 51

27

Table 5

Trial

Group N 1 2 3 4 5

Field-independent 28 365 368 373 365 371

Field-dependent 28 356 355 355 354 359

Introvert 26 366 366 371 371 374

Extravert 30 356 357 357 350 357

Independent-introvert 13 381 384 392 391 386

Independent- extravert 15 351 354 356 343 357

Dependent-introvert 13 351 347 351 350 361

Dependent-extravert 15 361 361 359 358 357

28

Table Captions

1. Mean Group Error Scores and Tests of Significance for Weight Judgment

Task by Field-dependence, Day, Trial and Combined Days

2. Number and Percent of Neurotic Ss Within Combined Field-Dependence

and Extraversion Categories (Table 6 from Fine, 1972a; N=178)

3. Mean Group Performance Scores on Anagram and Screw-Sorting Tasks by

Extraversion and Field-dependence

4. Target Detection Accuracy at Sea Level and Altitude by Extraversion and

Field-dependence

5. Mean Group Tapping Scores Over Five Trials by Extraversion and

Field-dependence

I.

29

Acknowledgements

The assistance of Ms. Edith A. Crohn and SP4 Linda S. Gowenlock in

administering the weight and color discrimination tests is most gratefully

acknowledged.

I